[Rembrandt_fan]

No need for the sarcasm and condescension, but okay.

The argument you're making parses out like this:

(1) Reading assignments in public schools should be carefully screened for incorrect content.

(2) Incorrect content may be defined as content which may cause offense to any ethnic, racial, or religious group, regardless of the context in which the incorrect content is presented. For example, the use of the 'F-word' in the novel 'Catcher in the Rye' would constitute incorrect content although the novel's protagonist, Holden Caulfield, describes seeing the word scratched on the wall of a public school, is offended by it, and complains of its use.

(3) Those offended by incorrect content carry an automatic majority vote in any decision concerning removal of incorrect content from any public school, library, or public institution, regardless of the number of those offended.

Again, Jorge, read the book. You're arguing from a vacuum. You're proposing dropping one of the greatest novels of American literature down the memory hole because you and others are seemingly incapable of understanding context or allegory. A good or even mediocre teacher is certainly capable of putting the novel in context for the children. Too bad there's not one standing over your shoulder in a bookstore.

[Chena]

Excellent response! On a side note, and a rather humorous one; when I was a young girl in public school a parent tried to get the book, "Catcher in the Rye", banned from our school library. The parent's issue with the book was not because of a swear word. It may have become an issue if the parent had ever read the book. But no, the parent's issue with the book was the title. The parent thought the title was, "Catch Her In The Rye". I remember my parents saying that "so and so" was going to have a hard time facing the community for awhile. LOL

[Jorge]

The argument you're making parses out like this:

Anybody who wants to know my REAL position can read my posts.

Don't waste your time trying to assign me positions you feel most comfortable arguing against.

I'll tell you what my argument is.

[Jorge]

Again, Jorge, read the book. You're arguing from a vacuum.

Actually I've read the book.

The only vacuum here is your inability to address the issues raised in the article.

You're proposing dropping one of the greatest novels of American literature down the memory hole because you and others are seemingly incapable of understanding context or allegory.

What are you talking about?

Who proposed dropping any "American literature down the memory hole"?

You talk about "others" being "incapable of understanding context or allegory" when you can't even read a simple post.

When are you going to respond to something I actually say on this topic?